Greeting everyone.
I have a quick question regarding Iomadean Paladins and their duty to seek out evil and bring them too justice (usually by the sword edge). Though they pursue this cause as their duty to their goddess do they truely enjoy hunting down evil-doers or do they do it just because they see it as something that needs to be done, whether they like it or not?
Some one way, some the other way. Who says all paladins of Iomedae are identical?
In my opinion, it's probably a mix.
When the developers applied the word "crusade" to the military operations in the world wound, that carries a lot of real-world historical baggage that may not have been intentional, but it sure is awesome.
Part of that baggage is that a crusade is a holy war, and that usually comes along with a remission of sins for confessors who participate. It's hard, but not impossible, to imagine a paladin who flirts with downfall but continues to return to the fold and fight for the cause in order to save his eternal soul... while perhaps not living a chaste and valorous life on the mortal plane.
I'm not quite sure how things like remission of sins and taking the "cross" and avoiding damnation through violence work in a world with a concrete, tangible afterlife (and gods).
I'd really love to see Pathfinder AP explore this in a worldwound AP.
My personal preference is, barring frequent atonements and being generally useful to the church in warfare, a "real" paladin shouldn't relish violence. Even slaying evil should be done with a reserved contemplation of evil's existence, and the will to avoid savoring violence lest you become the enemy's will. There are MANY such pronouncements in the codes of conduct for the knights templar (authored by St. Bernard) if you're looking for some tasty flavored historical bits.
I generally see Paladin's that relish in destroying evil as the ones that are on the verge of breaking their Code and falling from grace. A Paladin should be the epitome of truth, righteousness, and mercy. They should be attempting to redeem those who are evil, offering to help them from their path of darkness, not ruthlessly kill them simply because they chose the wrong path. Certain things, like undead, demons and devils, don't get that offer as they are, almost without fail, always purely evil in nature.
+1 to both :)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally? Good characters shouldn't be getting off on killing, even if it's evil beings that truly need to be put down.
A guy smiling with relief now that a horrible threat to others has been taken out is one thing.
A guy giving out brofists after slaying an assload of sapient beings is another entirely.
Good doesn't relish in killing and destruction. Otherwise it and evil are nothing more than tags with no real meaning. If someone is spurning mercy, redemption, basic respect for life, and all of that in favor of self-righteous bloodlust, they're falling short of good.
That doesn't mean Team Good can't be hotblooded as hell, or totally flippant in a fight. Team Good can enjoy fighting and defeating evil*. But the actual killing? Taking lives where redemption may have still had a chance, or even where it didn't, shouldn't be filling a good character's heart with joy.
*Which doesn't always require killing, after all.
Quite honestly it all depends on the paladin and the GM arbitrating what a paladin is and gets to do.
I've seen people play paladins who are utter prigs and self-righteous twits who act like the unholy spawn of Judge Dredd and the Church Lady. Personally as GM I'd strip those sorts of their paladinhood so fast it would make their heads spin like those of possessed tweens, but I also realize that I'm not every GM.
It also depends on the theology. Are, say, vampires entirely evil or do they possess some lingering shred of humanity and are thus capable of redemption and therefore deserving of mercy? Do they puff away into convenient dust when destroyed or is the paladin, after destroying the undead, left with piles of desecrated body parts which every law of knightly behavior and moral decorum would demand that he then bury with whatever rites and rituals he might manage?
Similarly, how much sin is a paladin allowed while still remaining a paladin? How frequent should Atonement be?
|
|
Do they puff away into convenient dust when destroyed or is the paladin, after destroying the undead, left with piles of desecrated body parts which every law of knightly behavior and moral decorum would demand that he then bury with whatever rites and rituals he might manage?
First piece of equipment I bought with money for my paladin was a shovel. :)
(Good barbarian does sky burials instead. Hey, it's how he wants his body to be treated.)
This does give me an idea though paladin with the bludgeoner feat from ultimate combat can take people alive and then try to redeem them. I think they can definitely be happy they are still alive and can do good in the world.
Iomadae is a goddess who believes in giving evildoers an opportunity for redemption before resorting to violence. While militant, she does not see herself as a war-deity. She's stern and sometimes harsh, but she is in no way bloodthirsty.
I would presume that, at least officially, bloodlust and joy in the kill is looked down upon by her servants, paladin or otherwise. It is not noble, it is not good, it is not honourable, or chivalrous. Iomadae is all of these things.
Take a look at the Goddess herself. It's fairly apparent. I imagine the only extent to which her servants can be said to "enjoy" violence is in the same way any warrior feels a certain satisfaction in accomplishing a task well. But joy? No.